We have an article on [[Category:Wikipedia official
policy]]. There are only a few key policies that might be
regarded as "official" - that is, considered by the
founders and the vast majority of contributors as being
particularly important to the running of Wikipedia. The
articles in this category explain and give guidance on some
of these more important policies. They have either
withstood the test of time or have been adopted by
consensus or acclaimation.
I propose that it is well past time to add
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] to this category. The goal of
Wikipedia is to become a complete and accurate
encyclopedia.
This policy meets all of the criteria listed on this main
article page. As I recall, it has been discussed in-depth
here, and pretty much everyone agrees that this already is
Wikipedia policy. (The only disagreement seems to be how
best to deal with people who violate it.)
As a corollary, we should add Wikipedia:Cite sources.
For discussion pro or con, let's discuss this on the
appropriate discussion page, so as to not clutter up the
Wiki-En list.
[[Category talk:Wikipedia official policy]]
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
Hello,
I lasted logged in to the English Wikipedia a few months ago, today
when I try to logon it gives an error "The password you entered is
incorrect. Please try again.". As far as I know the username/password
I'm giving is correct.
When I attempt to use the "Email new password" option it gives the
error "Error sending mail: There is no e-mail address recorded for
user "Popsracer"".
This is surprising because as far as I know my email address should be
on record. And I was able to successfully do a password reset on 8
June 2003.
Do accounts or passwords time out if not used for a certain period of time?
If at all possible I would like to keep my existing account but there
doesn't seem to be anyway I can get into it. Do I have any recourse
other then creating a new account and starting over?
Richard Gallagher (User:Popsracer)
In a message dated 4/2/2005 10:10:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
erik_moeller(a)gmx.de writes:
As such, I propose two simple rules for next year:
1) There will be one well-coordinated joke for the *outside* world,
Whether it's a featured article, a press release, or anything else can
be decided by the cabal on the to-be-created fools-l(a)wikimedia.org
mailing list ;-).
2) Jokes *within* the community are limited to the Wikipedia:, User:
and *Talk: namespaces. MediaWiki:, Template:, Image: and articles are
off limits. Jokes should not be overly disruptive.
I second this.
Danny
Andrew Lih wrote:
>Tony Sidaway <minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Maybe I didn't do enough RC patrol today, but are you sure? WP seemed
>>pretty normal to me.
>>
>>
>There was definitely more going on the last 36 hours. Obvious
>vandalism, is easy to detect and rollback, but were coming at a
>quicker rate. An anecdote and some stats:
>
>Block log - Perhaps the best informal "vandal meter" we have, here are
>some quick numbers from the last week, and a partial April 1 for the
>list of blocked IPs and names. There is definitely a spike.
>
>blocks-0322 4
>blocks-0323 4
>blocks-0324 7
>blocks-0325 15
>blocks-0326 14
>blocks-0327 9
>blocks-0328 15
>blocks-0329 21
>blocks-0330 6
>blocks-0331 40
>blocks-0401 62 (as of 21:30 EST)
>
>
If my attempt to reconstruct these statistics is correct, they were
taken from [[Special:Ipblocklist]] and not [[Special:Log/block]]. As a
result, they are highly misleading with respect to the number of blocks
performed on particular days.
[[Special:Ipblocklist]] contains a list of currently active blocks. Most
blocks for vandalism are only for 24 hours, sometimes longer for repeat
offenders. This means that the contents of [[Special:Ipblocklist]] will
be weighted heavily toward the most recent days, except for periods
where there is a surge of permanent blocks (e.g., a problem user
engaging in serial sockpuppetry, or a proxy-blocking binge).
Furthermore, [[Special:Ipblocklist]] also contains the autoblocks
triggered for IPs when a blocked user tries to edit, and these are
always for 24-hour periods.
On the other hand, [[Special:Log/block]] is the full log of all blocks
and unblocks (except for blocks set by the autoblocking feature).
Reviewing this does not show much of a spike in blocks for April 1 in my
judgment. If there is a slight increase, it might easily be explained
based on the recent problems with [[User:Martin2000]] over the
[[Bahá'u'lláh]] article, which has flooded the log with his sockpuppets
(every Nitram00xx user is one of these). The incident there has nothing
to do with April Fool's Day.
I agree that there was more frivolity on Wikipedia for April 1, and some
frivolity elsewhere may have spread here. But in terms of malicious
vandalism, I don't think the evidence indicates that the problem was
worse than any other day.
--Michael Snow
/Well, I think it was easily worth it. On the "fun people" scale, you'd expect
encyclopedia editors to be right down there with accountants and morticians,
but April Fool's demonstrated that, as a community, we have the capacity to
step back for a day and not take ourselves quite so seriously (even if 99% of
the time we're acrimoniously bitching about VfD or Autofellation etc...) I'll
add my thanks to all those people, too.
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
/I'm not against having fun, nor are most of the people who argued
against encouraging the April Fools Day insanity. On the other hand, surely
there's a better way to have fun than vandalizing wikipedia, because
- don't kid yourself - that's exactly what was going on.
--Mark
To all those people who said we should let our hair down, that April
Fools wouldn't really be
so bad (it was), that it wouldn't encourage vandalism wasn't too much
(it did), that people
would do be restrained about it (they weren't), that it would be over by
mid-day (it wasn't),
and that people wouldn't revert war over something so lame (they did), I
just thought I'd mention
that the arbcom recieved a request today from someone blocked for
excessively reverting
[[2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia]] (yes, the hoax article)
So thank you very much, to all those of you who pushed this idiotic
idea, from those of us
who actually have to pick up the pieces.
-- Disgruntled
/"Bringing up the [[Conclave]] article could also help. -- Danny"/
I should mention that it's already a featured article and has already been
on the main page. Send thank-you's to Lord Emsworth.
--Mark
Now that the pope has died, it would be a good idea if we got ready for all
the news and names in the news, leading up to featured article status. During
the conclave, 117 cardinals will vote and one of them will be elected. If it
anything like last time, it may well be someone rather anonymous. I would
therefore suggest that we try and fill in all th red links in [[College of
Cardinals]] so that we can be ahead of the news. Brishing up the [[Conclave]]
article could also help.
Danny
I get a database error very frequently when trying to
review article histories. I have to keep trying over
and over again before the history shows up.
RickK
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
--- Tim Starling <t.starling(a)physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Next year we should switch the wiki to read-only mode for 48 hours and
> take the opportunity to clean up the database schema a bit. Remember
> it's not just admins messing with articles, there's plenty of anonymous
> users too, and not all of them are careful to clean up the next day.
Good idea. It would prevent a great deal of nonsense and give people a break.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs